from the sweet dept

There have been attempts in the past to apply intellectual property protection to specific foods and drinks. Champagne sparkling wine is one of the more well-known examples of this and its application has resulted in problems in the past. Not terribly long ago, Lebanon took permission culture to the extreme and claimed they owned food copyrights (which don't exist) on ethnic foods like falafel and hummus, going so far as to plan to sue Israel for selling those same kinds of foods. This seeking to lock up widely known terms is quite depressing, since it's so often only about profiting by way of removing competitors. So depressing, in fact, that it makes me want to have a piece of chocolate to help me feel better.

They want the term "Belgian chocolate" to be their exclusive preserve and also want to crack down on foreign rivals dressing up their products as "Belgian style" or of a "Belgian recipe".

Geographical indication is something of a European thing, mostly, and one which the United States has actually pushed back on. One of the conditions a term must meet in order to be granted a GI is that it cannot be in common use already. Given that this entire story is all coming about as a result of foreign companies producing Belgian chocolate to meet high demand throughout the world seems to negate the entire endeavor on its face. Even more hilarious are the comments coming from these Belgian chocolate producers, who claim this is some matter of principal rather than profit.

"What makes us sad is that very often the copies are not up to the standard of the originals," Jos Linkens, chief executive of Neuhaus, told Reuters in an interview. "If top chocolatiers around the world copied us, perhaps we would be happy. We don't want the image of quality to suffer."

Uh huh. First off, that simply isn't a believable statement, given how much of the Belgian chocolate business growth has occurred in markets like Asia, where suddenly there are more competitors popping up to meet rising demand. This seems like a clear attempt to limit that competition. Secondly, if the quality of the so-called imposters aren't up to snuff, then your chocolate should win out anyway. Thirdly, if this idea that one had to protect certain styles or kinds of food on the basis of their reputation, the entire nation of Italy should have fire-bombed every Pizza Hut in existence long ago. They haven't, because the truth is that if you want good pizza, you go to the people who know what they're doing.

And if you want Belgian chocolate, you go to whoever makes it the best.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It's been a while since the dotcom boom days when human billboard tattoos were all the rage. Getting a tattoo is usually not considered a prudent decision, but it does attract attention... and that's usually what people are trying to get with tattoos. Maybe tattoo advertising is making a comeback, or maybe it's just as permanent as the ink in people's skin. Just make sure if you're getting a tattoo for money, that you really like your corporate sponsors.

from the finally! dept

Back in January, we had mentioned that Aaron Greenspan had offered up three $5,000 grants in memory of Aaron Swartz, for certain key improvements to RECAP, the browser extension that automatically uploads PACER documents to the Internet Archive, making them publicly available. The Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton -- where RECAP was initially developed -- and Greenspan have now announced that two grants have been awarded: one for creating a Chrome browser RECAP plugin and another for extending the capability to work with the appellate courts as well. While it's cool that these grants have been given out, it's even cooler that RECAP is now available for Chrome. If you're a PACER user and a Chrome user, go get the plugin now...

from the if-it-ain't-broke,-fix-it? dept

If you're a fan of playing baseball the way its inventor intended, meaning on your couch in front of the television with a controller in your hand, you may recall our discussion last year around 2K Sports' famous Perfect Game Challenge. Should you not be familiar with it, that contest revolves around a competition between anyone who was able to pitch a perfect game in the MLB2K series (no hits, no walks, no errors in a complete game shutout by one pitcher) for various large cash prizes. Deadspin's Owen Good discovered an exploit in the system that allowed players to manually replace the starting lineups of the teams they were opposing, essentially rigging it to face the worst possible lineup for their pitching performance, and still have it be counted as a valid perfecto. He also outted at least one specific entrant into the subsequent playoff contest for the challenge that used that system. 2K Sports declined to do anything about it, saying instead:

"The contest was run properly," 2K Sports said. "We look forward to awarding someone a million dollars on May 10 in New York."

Utilizing the black magic called "reductive reasoning", I can only assume that that the company is deciding this year to actively make their annual contest improper. What else would one conclude, given that they have fixed the exploit? As Owen Good once more notes:

Today, I started a game under the Million Dollar Challenge menu option and as soon as I pressed start to go the substitution menu in the loading screen, I lost the official logo. According to the contest's official rules, you may not pause the game, substitute any player on either team, make a mound visit, or delay the game longer than 10 seconds between pitches.

I learned long ago that the greatest power you have when you make a mistake is to own it, fix it, and move on. 2K Sports appears to have skipped a step, which just makes them look proud and petty. Unfortunately for them, both the internet and baseball keep long memories.

from the shameful dept

We've been hearing for a while that when the planned markup occurs next week for CISPA, that the House Intelligence Committee is intending to hold a closed markup, basically hiding the discussion and the possible amendments from the public. There is no good reason for this. The Intelligence Committee will claim, of course, that it needs to do this so that confidential information can be discussed in debating the markup, but that's hogwash. There are numerous concerns with the bill that can and should be addressed publicly. If there are key concerns about classified info getting out, that's easy enough to avoid, since so much that CISPA touches on has nothing to do with classified info -- and whatever comes up can be dealt with appropriately.

The truth is that this is yet another way to try to hide from the public on this issue. Congress doesn't want an open discussion on the many problems with CISPA, so it does what it does best: try to hide things away and rush them through when (hopefully) not enough people are looking. It makes you wonder just what CISPA's supporters are so worried about. Congress is supposed to work for the public, not hide things away from the public. This isn't a situation where they're discussing classified info or plans -- but merely a bill focused on information sharing between the government and private companies. Any markup on CISPA needs to be public.

Today the Prenda Law enterprise encountered an extinction-level event. Faced with a federal
judge's demand that they explain their litigation conduct, Prenda Law's attorney principals -- and
one paralegal -- invoked their right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. As a matter of individual prudence, that may have been the right decision.
But for the nationwide Prenda Law enterprise, under whatever name or guise or glamour, it
spelled doom.

Hail, Hail, The Gang's All Here

The crowd gathered early outside of the courtroom of United States District Judge Otis D.
Wright II. As before, the spectators included journalists, former Prenda defendants and
their lawyers, law clerks and externs, interested citizens, and Electronic Frontier Foundation
activists. The little crowd went awkward-party-foul silent when a team of lawyers and nervous-
looking men in suits filed into the courtroom. Some of us glanced at the chart that attorney Morgan
Pietz created to see if we could match faces. We soon saw that we could. Bets regarding
who would show up in response to Judge Wright's Order to
Show Cause were won and lost with some good-natured cursing.

A swarm of attorneys quickly checked in with the court clerk and took their places. On one side,
attorneys Morgan Pietz and
Nicholas Renallo looked
calm. They had boxes of materials they wouldn't need, and notes they wouldn't have to consult.
On the other side of the room, eight attorneys prepared to answer Judge Wright's questions,
mostly for naught. In the gallery, Brett Gibbs -- unhappy witness at the last hearing before Judge Wright -- sat looking sallow and grim. Paul and
Peter, the Hansmeier brothers, sat together, looking ridiculously young and out-of-place. Paul
Hansmeier's face was beefy-red. John Steele looked conspicuously slick and immaculate in an
impeccable suit, like a corporate executive in a bad Robocop sequel. Paul Duffy, Mark Lutz, and
Angela Van Den Hemel stared straight ahead.

Not With A Whimper, But A Bang

At a few minutes past the hour the door to chambers slammed open and Judge Wright marched
out and took the bench. Before he sat he strode back and forth once behind his chair, surveying
the gallery and running his tongue over his teeth. Then he sat, and called the case. Attorneys
announced their appearances -- Brett Gibbs, Paul Hansmeier, John Steele, Paul Duffy, Angela
Van Den Hemel, and Prenda Law all had counsel, but Peter Hansmeier and Mark Lutz did not.
When Paul Hansmeier's attorney announced Mr. Hansmeier was present, Judge Wright asked
where he was. Paul Hansmeier stood. "Front row," ordered Judge Wright, stabbing
a finger at the first row of benches behind Hansmeier's attorney. John Steele received the same
treatment, and sat next to Hansmeier. One of the attorneys pointed out that Peter Hansmeier
and Mark Lutz were present but not represented. "Welcome, sir," Judge Wright said to Peter
Hansmeier, not entirely convincingly. "Is there an Alan Cooper -- any Alan Cooper
present?" asked Judge Wright, referring to allegations that
Prenda Law had stolen the identity of a Minnesota caretaker to serve as an officer of dummy
clients. No such person was present.

Judge Wright wasted no time. He announced that he was "pleasantly surprised" that the people
he had summoned had arrived. "It should be clear this court's focus has shifted dramatically
from litigation of intellectual property rights to attorney misconduct -- such misconduct as brings
discredit to the profession," he began sternly. "I have questions for those present -- including
Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele can choose to answer those questions, or not."

Steele's attorney rose and said, in light of the "concerns" that
Judge Wright had raised at the March 11 hearing, and "serious allegations" made by Judge
Wright, Mr. Steele would be invoking his Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer questions.
I expected a murmur in the courtroom, but there was a silence like after a thunderclap. "The
word fraud was used," said Steele's lawyer. "It should have been," shot back Judge
Wright. Steele's lawyer gamely continued, saying that Steele was also precluded from answering
by the attorney-client privilege. "You think there is a difference between these clients and Mr.
Steele?" demanded Judge Wright, referring to allegations that the Prenda Law plaintiffs were
mere dummy entities concealing attorney interests in the cases. Steele's lawyer said there was a real difference,
but Judge Wright was clearly unconvinced. He made it clear, though, that Steele didn't have to
answer questions. "He doesn't have to answer if he thinks it may incriminate him," said Judge
Wright. "I'm not saying that the answers would incriminate him," protested Steele's lawyer, thus
muddying the question of whether his client was entitled to take the Fifth, "but you leave my
client with no choice."

Judge Wright grew steadily and visibly more outraged. "I want to know if some of my
conjecture is accurate -- and the only way to know is to have the principals here and ask them
questions. This is an opportunity for them to protect themselves," he said. But Steele's lawyer
confirmed his client would exercise his right to remain silent. Attorneys for Paul Hansmeier,
Paul Duffy, and Angela Van Den Hemel confirmed their clients, too, would invoke their rights to
remain silent. Judge Wright did not -- unless I missed it -- confirm whether Peter Hansmeier or
Mark Lutz would answer questions.

An Opportunity To Be Heard

Heather Rosing, appearing for Paul Duffy, Angela Van Den Hemel, and Prenda Law, rose and
asked Judge Wright for an opportunity to present "about a half hour" of argument on the points
in his Order to Show Cause. Look: when you are a lawyer, representing a client, you have to
stand up. You have to hold your ground even in the face of a furious federal judge.
When a judge is yelling at you, however unsettling it is, you have to hold fast and remember you
are there to represent the interests of your client against the terrible power of the court. Heather
Rosing stood up, and has my admiration, whatever I think of her clients.

Judge Wright was uninterested in hearing legal argument, as opposed to testimony
or evidence. "My clients have a right to a reasonable opportunity to be heard," Ms. Rosing
protested. "Excuse me?" thundered Judge Wright, probably thinking -- not
unreasonably -- that Ms. Rosing's clients could have filed briefs in advance to address any
legal arguments they had, and that Ms. Rosing's clients have been evading questions for
months. Judge Wright began to count off the questions he wanted answered. "I'm looking for
facts," he said. He wanted to know who directs Prenda Law's litigation efforts,
who makes its decisions, whether there is another Alan Cooper, and what happens with the
money Prenda Law makes from settlements. Ms. Rosing answered (wisely, and properly) that
she could not personally testify to those things. Why, Judge Wright demanded, did Prenda
Law conceal its attorneys' financial interest in the cases? "There's no evidence that they have
an interest," Ms. Rosing protested. "Excuse me?" Judge Wright
boomed even louder. Were there windows, they would have rattled. "Have you read Paul
Hansmeier's deposition?" he demanded, referring to the bizarre deposition in which Paul Hansmeier failed to explain Prenda Law's
shadowy owners or flow of funds. "I have," Ms. Rosing said, but stood her ground.

Ms. Rosing suggested that she might file a brief addressing her arguments. "Do so," said Judge
Wright acidly. "We're done," he said abruptly, and stormed off the bench. The whole hearing
took about fifteen minutes.

By invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, Prenda Law principals John Steele, Paul Hansmeier,
Paul Duffy, and paralegal Angela Van Den Hemel have avoided incriminating themselves. In
light of the evidence adduced -- evidence that Prenda Law may have created sham entities to
conceal its lawyers' interest in litigation, and may have misled courts across the country -- that
was very likely the smart thing to do. I might have advised it myself if I were representing them.
With respect to their individual exposure to potential criminal consequences, it stops things from
getting worse, which is often an attorney's first task.

I'm a criminal defense attorney. I cherish and support the Fifth Amendment. Its invocation here
was completely lawful. But its invocation will have catastrophic consequences for the Prenda
Law enterprise, which cannot possibly continue. When they appeared today, John Steele, Paul
Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy were not merely individuals facing the overwhelming power of the
state. They were also officers of the court and, according to the testimony of Brett Gibbs, the
very attorneys who directed nationwide litigation for the Prenda Law enterprise. Judge Wright
ordered them to answer for the conduct of that enterprise in his court, as he had the right and
power to do. Their invocation of their Fifth Amendment rights in the face of that order is utterly
unprecedented in my experience as a lawyer. In effect, the responsible lawyers for a law firm
conducting litigation before a court have refused to explain that litigation to the court on the
grounds that doing so could expose them to criminal prosecution.

However well grounded in the individual rights of Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy, the invocation eviscerates their credibility as lawyers and the credibility of Prenda Law as an enterprise in every court across the country. I expect that defense attorneys will file notice of if in every state and federal case Prenda Law has brought, through whatever guise or cutout. The message will be stark: the attorneys directing this litigation just took the Fifth rather than answer another judge's questions about their conduct in this litigation campaign. I expect federal and state judges across the country will take notice and begin their own inquiries. Moreover, Prenda's lawyers may face adverse consequences from the invocation in Alan Cooper's counterclaim against them. A defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent can't be used against him or her in a criminal case, but it often can in a civil case.

The consequences for the individuals behind Prenda Law may arrive slowly -- particularly by the
standards of Twitter and anxious blogs. But they will come -- and they may come from many
directions at once.

from the extinction-level-event dept

Well that happened much faster than expected. While Judge Otis Wright apparently had cleared his entire schedule today for the Prenda hearing, the actual hearing lasted all of 12 (count 'em) minutes, with Judge Wright declaring "we're done" before storming out. We'll have a more detailed writeup from Ken White, who was in the courtroom, shortly, but here's a quick summary of what happened. Unlike last time, everyone actually showed up (well, except for the imaginary Alan Cooper of AF Holdings who does not appear to exist) and promptly pleaded the fifth.

From various reports from inside the courtroom, it appears that the Judge asked various questions and was not at all pleased with the decision by Team Prenda to clam up, noting that he would "draw reasonable inferences" from the "facts as I know them." Judge Wright's attempts to find out more information to support or rebut the facts as he knows them apparently did not go well. He asked about Alan Cooper, and got not response. He asked about who made the decision to not disclose to the court Prenda's financial interests in the outcome, and was told by the lawyer representing Prenda that "there's no evidence" that this was the case, which only upset the judge more. He asked the lawyer if she had even read Hansmeier's deposition. It didn't take the judge long to decide this was a waste of time, and based on his statements, it appears he's convinced that Prenda was up to no good, and will rule accordingly.

That's the quick nuts and bolts. Ken White is busy at work on a deeper dive analysis, which we'll post when ready. His short summary on what to expect? "Holy shit" and that this is an "extinction-level event" for Prenda. Stay tuned for more...

from the tough-question dept

Last week, a lot of people liked that video about what a TV commercial would be for an honest cable company (ah, if only truth in advertising laws really worked...). And, soon after that came out, a few people alerted us to a new "gripes site" called TWCCustomerService.com, claiming to be (you guessed it) Time Warner Cable Customer Service... but using the slogan "Enjoy Worse." They put up a video in which they pose as Time Warner Cable Customer Service employees walking the streets of New York asking people what they can do to make their service worse. The original video on YouTube has been taken down, but other copies are being uploaded in a bunch of places.

We have a monopoly in parts of New York City and no incentive to provide customer service.

We will bill you for services you don’t have and fight you when you dispute the charges.

We will set up appointment times that force you to miss work then cancel at the last second.

We can record your phone call but you can’t record ours.

Even if you report a service outage you will still be charged.

If you call one of our customer service experts to disconnect your internet we will continue to charge you indefinitely until you return our modem. We will make no mention of this during our phone call.

Clearly whoever put together the site is... well... not a happy customer. They also include a... um... "message" from TWC CEO Glenn Britt.

As gripe sites go, these guys are definitely pushing it, but it's ridiculous to think that anyone viewing the site would actually think that it's an official TWC site (the guys on the street may be a different story...).

from the skin-in-the-game dept

After weathering earlier attacks on its reliability, Wikipedia is now an essential feature of our online and cultural landscapes. Indeed, it's hard now to imagine a world where you can't quickly check up some fact or other by going online to Wikipedia and typing in a few keywords. But that centrality brings with it its own problems, as a post from Benjamin Mako Hill about legal threats he received thanks to his work as a Wikipedia editor makes clear.

Although the Wikipedia article was long and detailed, it sent off some internal Wikipedian-alarm-bells for me. The page read, to me, like an advertisement or something written by the organization being described; it simply did not read -- to me -- like an encyclopedia article written by a neutral third-party.

I looked through the history of the article and found that the article had been created by a user called Icd_berlin who had made no other substantive edits to the encyclopedia. Upon further examination, I found that almost all other significant content contributions were from a series of anonymous editors with IP addresses associated with Berlin. I also found that a couple edits had removed criticism when it had been added to the article. The criticism was removed by an anonymous editor from Berlin.

Several months later a new article was created -- again, by an anonymous user with no other edit history. Although people tend to look closely at previously deleted new pages, this page was created under a different name: "The Institute of Cultural Diplomacy" and was not noticed.

That was problematic, for the following reason:

Deleted Wikipedia articles are only supposed to be recreated after they go through a process called deletion review. Because the article was recreated out of this process, I nominated it for what is called speedy deletion under a policy specifically dealing with recreated articles. It was deleted again. Once again, things were quiet.

But not for long. On 25 February of this year, yet another article about ICD appeared on Wikipedia, once more "out of process", and by a user with almost no previous edit history. The next day, Hill received the following email from Mark Donfried, who is described on ICD's Web site as "Executive Director and Founder of the institute for Cultural Diplomacy":

Please note that the ICD is completely in favor of fostering open dialogue and discussions, even critical ones, however some of your activities are raising serious questions about the motives behind your actions and some even seem to be motives of sabotage, since they resulted in ICD not having any Wikipedia page at all.

We are deeply concerned regarding these actions of yours, which are causing us considerable damages. As the person who initiated these actions with Wikipedia and member of the board of Wikipedia, we would therefore request your answer regarding our questions below within the next 10 days (by March 6th). If we do not receive your response we will unfortunately have to consider taking further legal actions with these regards against you and other anonymous editors.

These events indicate how important it is becoming to have a Wikipedia entry -- preferably a favorable one. Indeed, it's getting to the point where some people think that they actually have a right to one. Although that's a wonderful sign of Wikipedia's power and importance, it also means that it will find itself increasingly under pressure from those who are unhappy at not having an entry, or because of the things the entry says. Maintaining objectivity and a neutral point of view was always hard, but is bound to get harder in the future.

Moreover, it seems likely that Hill finds himself on the receiving end of legal threats because he uses his own name on Wikipedia, rather than operating anonymously as many others do. ICD's current actions almost certainly mean that fewer people will be willing to take that risk, and will instead opt to carry out their work under the cloak of anonymity, or may not want to get involved at all. That last point -- the potential chilling effect -- is the most worrying, as Hill explains:

If I can be scared off by threats like these, anybody can. After all, I have friends at the Wikimedia Foundation, a position at Harvard Law School, and am close friends with many of the world's greatest lawyer-experts on both wikis and cyberlaw. And even I am intimidated into not improving the encyclopedia.

I am concerned by what I believe is the more common case -- where those with skin in the game will fight harder and longer than a random Wikipedian. The fact that it's usually not me on the end of the threat gives me lots of reasons to worry about Wikipedia at a time when its importance and readership continues to grow as its editor-base remains stagnant.

We may come to look back on today's Wikipedia as the project's golden age, before those "with skin in the game" started their assault in earnest, and before Wikipedia editors increasingly gave up trying to ward them off for fear of legal reprisals.

from the pretty-much-like-the-movie-'Brazil,'-only-with-stylish-electronics dept

The nightmarishly intertwining world of music licensing is a popular topic here, especially considering the past outlandish actions of various performance rights agencies. On top of this, there's the multitude of different licenses, each one applying specifically to certain formats or outlets. If it's streaming on Youtube, it needs x license and y license. If it's streaming at Spotify, it needs x license and z license. If it's a radio station simulcast at the station's website, license x, y and z are needed, along with license aa. And so on.

Podcasters in the UK are running into licensing problems when attempting to clear music for their broadcasts, as PPL (who covers performance rights for recorded music, like SoundExchange in the US) is causing problems. PPL has a history of questionable over enforcement, and they just can't let up, apparently. Phil Satterly sends in this rather sad story of a long-running Progressive Rock podcast (DRRP Radio) that is going "off the air" thanks to PPL's thoroughly impossible demands.

Launched 18 months ago, we've produced 83 shows that have been downloaded over 30,000 times. We've covered bands from every type of prog. We've done special features on independent labels and festivals plus interviews with the likes of Clive Nolan, Steven Wilson, Gazpacho, Steve Hogarth, Riverside, Sean Filkins, Mystery and Godsticks. We have regular listeners from as far away as New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, Cuba and The Shetland Isles!

Unfortunately three weeks ago our service provider stopped enabling downloads of the shows. The move followed pressure from the PPL – the organisation in the UK which provides broadcast licences for the recording copyright holder (i.e. record companies).

PPL is doing what collective rights organizations do best: shut down as many artistic outlets as possible. The organization is looking for a payout, but can't even be bothered to let people pay them, as Andy Read (one of the podcast hosts) points out.

Music licensing is a complex issue and it took quite some find to find a way to legally do DPRP Radio in the first place. We have a broadcast licence, we have a streaming licence and we have a podcast licence for the PRS – the body representing the songwriters. We do not have a podcast licence for the PPL who are now threatening legal action against podcast providers. We would happily buy a podcast licence from them… but they do not offer one!

As a broadcaster you would have to obtain permission from potentially thousands of record companies before being able to play the recorded music – a PPL licence gives you this permission and allows you to play virtually all recorded music readily available in the UK simply, quickly and legally. PPL then passes these licence fees, less our running costs, onto the performers and rights holders, similar to royalties.

Handy, I guess, except that PPL does not offer a license specifically for podcasting. Podcasters need a very limited license if using PPL's music because the podcasts are able to be downloaded and stored. This distinguishes them (and moves them into another area of copyright protection) from radio broadcasts or other streaming services whose offerings are transient. (Not that these can't be "trapped/downloaded." Anyone remember cassette tapes? Yeah, same thing. Only with software.)

PPL's lack of a podcasting license punts the ball back to podcasters and other music bloggers. If they can't get a blanket license, they'll have to do it the hard way: "obtain permission from potentially thousands of record companies before being able to play the recorded music."

Obviously, this is an impossibility. And for those of you saying clever stuff like "just use original music by artists not represented by this agency?" Well, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Rights groups like PPL and PRS will still try to collect from you. In their minds, no one plays music anywhere (not even in their hardware store/ hotel room) without playing a bunch of their stuff. It's a self-serving distortion of reality.

And for those hoping the artists that split from PPL to form their own rights group (EOS) will result in a brighter, smoother future for all concerned? You can pretty much kiss that rosy picture goodbye. EOS has already attempted to shutter a few radio stations. The end result is another venue for artist exposure being shut down by the "white knights" of the artistic community. These agencies don't really care about the artists on their roster. They just want to find a way to insert themselves, hands out, between the artists and their supporters.

The internet is important, but the copyright wars treat it as a triviality: like cable TV 2.0; like the second coming of the telephone; like the world's greatest pornography distribution system. Laws such as the Digital Economy Act provide for disconnecting whole families from the internet without due process because someone in the vicinity is accused of watching TV the wrong way. That would be bad enough, if the internet were merely a conduit for delivering entertainment products. But the internet is a lifeline for families, and giving some offshore entertainment companies the right to take it away because they suspect you of doing them wrong is like giving Brita the power to turn off your family's water if they think you've been abusing your filter; like giving KitchenAid the power to take away your home's mains power if they think you've been using your mixer in an unapproved way.

And, of course, like me, Cory makes his money by producing content. But we realize that the internet is much more important to us than stopping any kind of infringement of our content.

Look, I'm in the industry. It's my bread and butter. If you buy my lovely, CC-licensed books, I make money, and that will make me happy. As a matter of fact, my latest UK edition is Pirate Cinema, a young adult science fiction novel about this very subject that won high accolades when it came out in the US last autumn. But I'm not just a writer: I'm also a citizen, and a father and a son. I want to live in a free society more than I want to go on earning my improbable living in the arts. And if the cost of "saving" my industry is the freedom and openness of the internet, then hell, I guess I'll have to resign from the 0.0000000000000000001 percent club.

Thankfully, I don't think it has to be. The point is that when we allow the problem to be framed as "How to we get artists paid?" we end up with solutions to my problems, the problems of the 0.0000000000000000001 percent, and we leave behind the problems of the whole wide world.

The key point he's making there: the vast, vast, vast majority of folks who try to make a living making content will fail. The problem, today, is that many are blaming those failures -- which would have happened in almost any other era as well -- as if it's a problem from the internet. We have this blind spot for all of those failures. When people talk about how much musicians make or how many musicians are employed today, they leave out the parts about all the people who tried under the old system and were unable to make it. When you add those back in, the picture looks very, very different. And all of the amazing things that the internet is enabling is actually making it easier for many to create, to promote, to distribute and to monetize their content than ever before. By a long shot. But much of the "copyright wars" are not really about all that. It's about protecting the old gatekeepers who kept most comers out of the system altogether.

And, for various reasons, politicians often fall for their story.

Anti-piracy campaigns emphasise the risk to society if people get the idea that it's OK to take without asking ("You wouldn't steal a car...") but the risk I worry about is that governments will get the idea that regulatory collateral damage to the internet is an acceptable price for achieving "important" policy goals. How else to explain the government's careless inclusion of small-scale bloggers and friends with their own Facebook groups in the scope of the Leveson press regulation? How else to explain Teresa May's determination, in the draft communications bill, to spy on everything we do on the internet?

These policy disasters spring from a common error: the assumption that incidental damage to the internet is an acceptable price in the service of your own goals. The only way that makes sense is if you radically discount the value of the internet – hence all the establishment sympathy for contrarian writers who want to tell us all that the internet makes us stupid, or played no role in the Arab spring, or cheapens discourse. Any time you hear someone rubbishing the internet, have a good look around for the some way that person would benefit if the internet was selectively broken in their favour.

from the time-to-fix-the-problem dept

Most people used to think that patent trolls tended to focus on bigger companies -- those with huge bank accounts who'd rather pay the troll off than deal with a lawsuit. But over the last few years, we've been hearing more and more stories about startups hit by patent trolls, who are taking advantage of the fact that a patent lawsuit -- win or lose -- would almost certainly kill the company. One common tactic? Wait until a startup announces a round of fundraising and then pounce -- knowing that the company (a) has some money and (b) has little time to deal with a lawsuit. Finally, this issue is getting some attention. Crain's recently had a piece on patent trolls going "downmarket" after startups, which has some quotes from startup execs (many who want to remain anonymous to avoid further attacks). One of whom is actually fighting the troll:

"I have more lawyers than I have employees," said the entrepreneur, who asked to remain anonymous for fear he would be the target of even more lawsuits.

That entrepreneur noted that he's stopped paying himself a salary, and his legal bills ($50,000 per month) were rivaling his overall payroll of $63,000 per month. But he's fighting the troll on principle.

But, of course, even if he wins, he's not going to get that money back:

Young companies that are looking for venture capital are most likely to settle, so goes the conventional wisdom, because they have limited cash and worry that a lawsuit will scare off investors. It's cheap to bring a lawsuit, but expensive—$2.5 million on average—to defend against one. Not surprisingly, the majority of patent suits are settled out of court.

"The system is so stacked against me," said the e-commerce entrepreneur. "To prove I'm right, it will cost me more money than I have raised in my company's existence. If I win, I don't get the money back, and if I lose, I owe triple damages."

This is part of the reason why the SHIELD Act would be a useful step. While there are still many, many problems with patent trolling, at least it would make it possible to go after trolls for legal fees when the trolls lose.

from the suuuuuuure dept

We recently covered the fact that a number of the Team Prenda Players were also involved in somewhat questionable class action objection lawsuits, mostly led by Paul Hansmeier, representing close family members and employees objecting to class action settlements (but apparently willing to "go away" for a fee). While we believe that many class action settlements are, in fact, questionable, the actions by Hansmeier and others in the various objections that were covered seem equally questionable, often appearing to basically jump in at the last minute to throw a wrench into the settlement works, then be willing to walk away for some amount of money.

Joe Mullin at Ars Technica scored an interview with Hansmeier, in which he repeatedly refused to discuss the copyright lawsuits and Prenda (or anyone associated with them), but did try to defend the class action stuff, arguing that it's really done to correct injustices. In fact, when confronted with the note he sent a lawyer representing the class, offering to go away for $30,000, Hansmeier tried to spin it as having little to do with the money and being all about fixing those injustices.

If someone offered you $30,000 to go away from a case, I'm pretty sure you would take that money and go live to fight another day. We are motivated to correct injustices in the case. What we're trying to address is the structure of the settlement. In another case, we did successfully encourage the judge to modify the case, although slightly. If [a settlement] gives money to a charitable organization that has nothing to do with the needs of the class—that's something you can fight.

He also claims that the reason he's representing family members and employees is because that's what all lawyers do to establish themselves... or something like that.

Look, I'm not going to walk up to some guy on the street and say, "Do you have some kind of class action objection issue?" You start with people in your inner circle and expand outward. That's how you start any business, including a law practice.

That's one way of looking at it. I know a bunch of lawyers who have started independent shops as well, and I can't think of any who have represented family members. They may have gotten early referrals from friends, but that's about it.

And then the interview descends into "I'm not going to comment on that" over and over again as Mullin asks about the copyright cases, whether or not he's intending to show up in Wright's court, and even how he came to know John Steele.